Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between serous and non-serous ovarian cancer as a prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma after primary debulking surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Residual tumor size after primary surgery is the most important prognostic factor in advanced ovarian cancer. We conducted a retrospective study in Japanese women to evaluate the association of various residual disease diameters and histological subtypes with overall survival (OS) in patients with residual disease ≥1 cm.

Methods

Demographic and clinicopathological data were obtained from the Tokai Ovarian Tumor Study Group; 294 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III and IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma who had undergone primary debulking surgery between 1986 and 2007 and had ≥1 cm residual tumor were identified. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association of prognostic factors with OS.

Results

Non-serous advanced ovarian cancer was associated with a significant increase in the risk of death. For serous ovarian cancer, residual tumor size was not an independent prognostic factor [multivariate hazard ratio (HR) = 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96–2.79 (2–5 cm); HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.72–2.17 (>5 cm); trend P = 0.480], whereas taxane-based chemotherapy was associated with a better prognosis (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44–0.99, P = 0.046). For non-serous ovarian cancer, in contrast, residual tumor size was associated with an increased risk of death [multivariate HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.36–2.14 (2–5 cm); HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 0.96–5.08 (>5 cm); trend P = 0.067], whereas taxane-based chemotherapy was not a prognostic factor [HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.29–1.65, P = 0.409 (taxane-based)].

Conclusions

Although primary maximal cytoreduction is essential to improving OS in advanced ovarian cancer, our findings suggest the management of patients with suboptimal residual tumor should take into account differences between histological subtypes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tamakoshi K, Kondo T, Yatsuya H et al (2001) Trends in the mortality (1950–1997) and incidence (1975–1993) of malignant ovarian neoplasm among Japanese women: analyses by age, time, and birth cohort. Gynecol Oncol 83:64–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Statistics and Information Department MoH, Labour and Welfare, Japan (2007) Vital Statistics. 2007 [cited; Available from: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/index.html]

  3. Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (2007) Ovarian cancer treatment guidelines 2007. Kanehara & Co. Ltd, Tokyo

  4. Network NCC (2009) Ovarian Cancer Guideline (V.2.2009). 2009 [cited 2009 August, 7]; Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/ovarian.pdf

  5. Covens AL (2000) A critique of surgical cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 78:269–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dauplat J, Le Bouedec G, Pomel C et al (2000) Cytoreductive surgery for advanced stages of ovarian cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 19:42–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Curtin JP, Malik R, Venkatraman ES et al (1997) Stage IV ovarian cancer: impact of surgical debulking. Gynecol Oncol 64:9–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Akahira JI, Yoshikawa H, Shimizu Y et al (2001) Prognostic factors of stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. Gynecol Oncol 81:398–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chi DS, Liao JB, Leon LF et al (2001) Identification of prognostic factors in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 82:532–537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Winter WE III, Maxwell GL, Tian C et al (2007) Prognostic factors for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 25:3621–3627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Omura GA, Brady MF, Homesley HD et al (1991) Long-term follow-up and prognostic factor analysis in advanced ovarian carcinoma: the Gynecologic Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol 9:1138–1150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Makar AP, Baekelandt M, Trope CG et al (1995) The prognostic significance of residual disease, FIGO substage, tumor histology, and grade in patients with FIGO stage III ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 56:175–180

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brun JL, Feyler A, Chene G et al (2000) Long-term results and prognostic factors in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 78:21–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Winter WE 3rd, Maxwell GL, Tian C et al (2008) Tumor residual after surgical cytoreduction in prediction of clinical outcome in stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 26:83–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bristow RE, Montz FJ, Lagasse LD et al (1999) Survival impact of surgical cytoreduction in stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 72:278–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoskins WJ, McGuire WP, Brady MF et al (1994) The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:974–979 discussion 9-80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hess V, A’Hern R, Nasiri N et al (2004) Mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer: a separate entity requiring specific treatment. J Clin Oncol 22:1040–1044

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pectasides D, Fountzilas G, Aravantinos G et al (2006) Advanced stage clear-cell epithelial ovarian cancer: the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group experience. Gynecol Oncol 102:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shimada M, Kigawa J, Ohishi Y et al (2009) Clinicopathological characteristics of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the ovary. Gynecol Oncol 113:331–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wimberger P, Lehmann N, Kimmig R et al (2006) Impact of age on outcome in patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated within a prospectively randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR). Gynecol Oncol 100:300–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Prefontaine M, Gelfand AT, Donovan JT et al (1994) Reproducibility of tumor measurements in ovarian cancer: a study of interobserver variability. Gynecol Oncol 55:87–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the staff of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nagoya University Hospital and affiliated hospitals. We are also grateful to Dr. Keitaro Matsuo, Dr. Hideo Tanaka, and colleagues of the Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, for their support with statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8681, Japan

    Satoyo Hosono

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan

    Satoyo Hosono, Hiroaki Kajiyama & Fumitaka Kikkawa

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital, Nagoya, Japan

    Kimio Mizuno

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Okazaki Municipal Hospital, Okazaki, Japan

    Katsumi Sakakibara

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anjo Kosei Hospital, Anjo, Japan

    Katsuji Matsuzawa

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gifu Prefectural Tajimi Hospital, Tajimi, Japan

    Akihiro Takeda

  7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Toyohashi Municipal Hospital, Toyohashi, Japan

    Michiyasu Kawai

  8. Division of Pathology, Clinical Laboratory, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan

    Tetsuro Nagasaka

Authors
  1. Satoyo Hosono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroaki Kajiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kimio Mizuno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katsumi Sakakibara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katsuji Matsuzawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Akihiro Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michiyasu Kawai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tetsuro Nagasaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fumitaka Kikkawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satoyo Hosono.

About this article

Cite this article

Hosono, S., Kajiyama, H., Mizuno, K. et al. Comparison between serous and non-serous ovarian cancer as a prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma after primary debulking surgery. Int J Clin Oncol 16, 524–532 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-011-0223-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-011-0223-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation